2018 (9) TMI 864 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income of the assessee by applying a fair and reasonable net profit rate - Estimation of income by applying net profit rate of 8% - Held that - Estimation of profit is purely a question of fact meaning thereby that no particular rate of profit has universal application and depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case the rate of profit varies. It therefore implies past history of the assessee s own case is the most relevant guide for estimation of profit. CIT(A) has also ignored the provisions of Sec. 145(3)/144 by not appreciating the trading results declared by the assessee in the earlier years and has confirmed the very high and unreasonable net profit rate of 8% on the gross total receipts which is without any basis by taking support of the provisions of sections 44AD which are not applicable in the present case because the turnover of the assessee is in several crores. Past history is the best guide to estimate profit where book profit is unbelievable, we derive authority from the Hon ble Jurisdictional M.P High Court Judgement in the case of VrajlalManilal & Co. Vs CIT 1972 (11) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Method of accounting - Estimation of profit - Assessment year 1957-58 - Whether previous orders of assessment, although they may even be best judgment assessments, would form good material or good evidence for purpose of computing income of assessment year in question - Held, yes. The grievance of the assessee is accepted as justified. It is just fair and reasonable to estimate income of the assessee at the Net Profit rate of 5.0% as against 8% estimated by the authorities below. Accordingly, the ground is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of audited books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Application of an 8% net profit rate on gross contract receipts.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Audited Books of Accounts under Section 145(3)
The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in rejecting the audited books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The AO rejected the books due to deficiencies such as the non-availability of site-wise proof of payments, sand purchase evidence, and incomplete vouchers for expenses. The assessee admitted to some discrepancies and suggested a 5% net profit rate. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, citing the assessee's admission of irregularities and referencing the case of Mahesh Chandra Contractor vs. Income-tax Officer, where the ITAT Agra upheld the rejection of books due to similar deficiencies. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) based their decisions on presumption, surmises, and suspicion without considering the past trading results or comparable cases. The Tribunal found that the rejection of accounts was not justified as the assessee maintained regular books, which were audited under Section 44AB, and the AO did not point out specific deficiencies.

Issue 2: Application of an 8% Net Profit Rate on Gross Contract Receipts
The second issue was whether the application of an 8% net profit rate on the gross contract receipts by the AO, confirmed by the CIT(A), was justified. The AO applied an 8% rate after rejecting the books of accounts, resulting in an addition of ?50,41,687/-. The CIT(A) supported this decision, referencing Section 44AD of the Act, which prescribes an 8% profit rate for small contractors, although it was not directly applicable due to the higher turnover. The assessee argued that the AO ignored past history, where net profit rates ranged from 2.7% to 2.93%, and cited comparable cases where lower rates were applied. The Tribunal noted that estimation of income should be based on past trading results or comparable cases and found the 8% rate unreasonable. The Tribunal referenced cases like Sanjay Traders and Satish Thakur vs. ACIT Gwalior, where lower net profit rates were upheld. The Tribunal concluded that a 5% net profit rate was fair and reasonable, considering the assessee’s past history and the nature of the business.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to apply a 5% net profit rate instead of 8%, thus providing relief to the assessee. The decision emphasized the importance of considering past trading results and comparable cases in estimating income, rejecting additions based on mere presumption and suspicion. The judgment highlighted the need for a fair and reasonable approach in confirming the estimation of income, ensuring it has a reasonable nexus to the material available on records and the circumstances of the case.